Purpose: This study takes advantage of newly released journal metrics to investigate whether local journals with more qualified boards have lower acceptance rates, based on data from 219 Turkish national journals and ...Purpose: This study takes advantage of newly released journal metrics to investigate whether local journals with more qualified boards have lower acceptance rates, based on data from 219 Turkish national journals and 2,367 editorial board members.Design/methodology/approach: This study argues that journal editors can signal their scholarly quality by publishing in reputable journals. Conversely, editors publishing inside articles in affiliated national journals would send negative signals. The research predicts that high(low) quality editorial boards will conduct more(less) selective evaluation and their journals will have lower(higher) acceptance rates. Based on the publication strategy of editors, four measures of board quality are defined: Number of board inside publications per editor(INSIDER), number of board Social Sciences Citation Index publications per editor(SSCI), inside-to-SSCI article ratio(ISRA), and board citation per editor(CITATION). Predictions are tested by correlation and regression analysis.Findings: Low-quality board proxies(INSIDER, ISRA) are positively, and high-quality board proxies(SSCI, CITATION) are negatively associated with acceptance rates. Further, we find that receiving a larger number of submissions, greater women representation on boards, and Web of Science and Scopus(WOSS) coverage are associated with lower acceptance rates. Acceptance rates for journals range from 12% to 91%, with an average of 54% and a median of 53%. Law journals have significantly higher average acceptance rate(68%) than other journals, while WOSS journals have the lowest(43%). Findings indicate some of the highest acceptance rates in Social Sciences literature, including competitive Business and Economics journals that traditionally have low acceptance rates. Limitations: Research relies on local context to define publication strategy of editors. Findings may not be generalizable to mainstream journals and core science countries where emphasis on research quality is stronger and editorial selection is based on scientific merit.Practical implications: Results offer useful insights into editorial management of national journals and allow us to make sense of local editorial practices. The importance of scientific merit for selection to national journal editorial boards is particularly highlighted for sound editorial evaluation of submitted manuscripts.Originality/value: This is the first attempt to document a significant relation between acceptance rates and editorial board publication behavior.展开更多
文摘Purpose: This study takes advantage of newly released journal metrics to investigate whether local journals with more qualified boards have lower acceptance rates, based on data from 219 Turkish national journals and 2,367 editorial board members.Design/methodology/approach: This study argues that journal editors can signal their scholarly quality by publishing in reputable journals. Conversely, editors publishing inside articles in affiliated national journals would send negative signals. The research predicts that high(low) quality editorial boards will conduct more(less) selective evaluation and their journals will have lower(higher) acceptance rates. Based on the publication strategy of editors, four measures of board quality are defined: Number of board inside publications per editor(INSIDER), number of board Social Sciences Citation Index publications per editor(SSCI), inside-to-SSCI article ratio(ISRA), and board citation per editor(CITATION). Predictions are tested by correlation and regression analysis.Findings: Low-quality board proxies(INSIDER, ISRA) are positively, and high-quality board proxies(SSCI, CITATION) are negatively associated with acceptance rates. Further, we find that receiving a larger number of submissions, greater women representation on boards, and Web of Science and Scopus(WOSS) coverage are associated with lower acceptance rates. Acceptance rates for journals range from 12% to 91%, with an average of 54% and a median of 53%. Law journals have significantly higher average acceptance rate(68%) than other journals, while WOSS journals have the lowest(43%). Findings indicate some of the highest acceptance rates in Social Sciences literature, including competitive Business and Economics journals that traditionally have low acceptance rates. Limitations: Research relies on local context to define publication strategy of editors. Findings may not be generalizable to mainstream journals and core science countries where emphasis on research quality is stronger and editorial selection is based on scientific merit.Practical implications: Results offer useful insights into editorial management of national journals and allow us to make sense of local editorial practices. The importance of scientific merit for selection to national journal editorial boards is particularly highlighted for sound editorial evaluation of submitted manuscripts.Originality/value: This is the first attempt to document a significant relation between acceptance rates and editorial board publication behavior.
